someone has the admins email im pretty sure. call them a dirty n'wah. it will make you feel better.

it still works with "avoiding labour". also its a funny play on words buddy.

SA stands for sexual assault. checks out.

this is why it is "too expensive" to build nuclear power plants btw. If you start the build, some committee decides that there is a new legal requirement half-way, then you *have to* tear your current progress down and remodel to implement the new requirements. there is no grandfathering when it comes to this shit.

But don't worry, this totally hasn't happened in reality to such an extent that nobody is willing to take on a public sector project for a nuclear reactor anymore. It is also totally not exploitable by people with a political agenda to ensure the public sees nuclear power as unfeasible. it is totally not possible to influence law-makers that do not put shit like this up to a public vote by lobbyists from big companies that *might* have a vested interest to prevent the expansion of nuclear power.

it also totally isn't a gravy train machine that can be used to leech as much free tax money from the public for safe incomes for years on end. Don't worry about the broken incentives and just be happy with your wind farms.

nah QR codes have pretty shit data density, which is why most of them just point to a url. I tried to convert my comment into one and I had to delete 4 paragraphs to make it fit.

surely the people who made this totally not emotionally charged piece of video documentary had in no way selected for things that support their foregone conclusions.

both semi-takes that add nothing tbh. i know its a meme site and so getting anal about this shit is weird, but my autism brain demands I write an essay because I care about this shit way more than I should...

shizo rant incoming, but *** it I think it's worth it:

here's the simple truth: attraction is the prerequisite for everything.
doesn't matter how great a partner is on paper in terms of what is socially respectable to care about: if you don't want to *** them, you will always be unhappy with them (to some extent). sexual attraction for the sake of procreation is wired much more deeply into your psyche than all of these highly evolved, pro-social desires for companionship etc. this is why the whole chad/soyboy dichotomy developed in online discourse in the first place. If you're ugly and lame, it doesn't matter what your people qualities are. and women don't need to know that to feel it. everybody knows it, its just not polite to say out loud. all of these incels also want a hot chick not a hog. this is also the origin of "nice guys finish last". Hot dudes have options and women can't help but be attracted to them. the hot dudes are not wired to tie themselves down. women are (women are dependent on external help during pregnancy, even nowadays).

It's not that complicated. Some people just don't want evolutionary psychology to be correct. women want a man that is superior or at least equal to them bc fit offspring => hypergamy. If a dude is doing everything for you before he even puts a ring on you, he's not attractive. it signals a lack of desirability. I don't make the rules, I just know its true. Women enjoy the chase bc they get to feel like they made a good catch by the end of it. they want to be the one who managed to tie down the guy all the other girls couldn't. that's what satisfies the hypergamy instinct that is intended to produce good offspring.

In nature, most men do not get to procreate. that leads to an extremely competitive environment between males vying for female attention. this is not good for a peaceful society. this, in turn, is why all large-scale societies have strict rules against adultery and adhere to monogamy. because women *will* share a man if it means they get to get with the hot guy. the rules of civilization, in a lot of ways, are an intentional restriction on this natural sexual competition. because you cannot have a peaceful society without it.

this, in turn, is why deeply traditionalist/conservative/religious people have a problem with the sexual revolution. it puts society back into the state of nature and unrestricted sexual competition. though most of them do not understand this on a technical level and just rely on the rules they were brought up with. (which is why traditions are such a good thing 9/10. You don't need to understand the ins and outs to make reasonable calls in most cases. and since interest in intellectualism and IQ are not abundant in human populations, traditions are a great heuristic on a macro-level). following these rules means that a lot of girls end up with men they find to be below their standards according to the monkey part of their brain. this is in conflict with their socialized brain. that's where the disconnect happens and so they post shit like this bc they kinda hate the fact they can't be happy with a guy that is "good for them". Which he is...but the ooga booga brain disagrees...and its much older than the logical part of human brains...which is pretty young by comparison...and so the ooga booga brain creates much more visceral sensations that are difficult to ignore.

I believe this is what feminists are ultimately identifying when they are talking about "the patriarchy". they feel like they should not be restricted by these social norms that are caging in their sexuality. but the truth is: if they don't want "rape culture" they shouldn't hack at the branch they are sitting on. because if they get their wish and thus the state of nature is reached in which only 20% (semi-ass-pull percentage) of males get to *** while the other 80% don't...well...you tell me what you think will happen then. it doesn't have to be all of the remaining 80% for it to become a rape culture, does it? and even those that do not get any and don't decide to get theirs by force: what obligation will those remaining men feel to protect women they have no chance with at the expense of their own lives?

modern society is ***ed, in a lot of ways, because we "overcame" these traditions while not understanding what exactly they were good for. and why we needed them in the first place. if the sexual revolution opened the flood gates, tinder and the like blew up the dam wholesale. thank god i don't need to use those ***ing apps.

if you are interested in a stable society at the expense of your own liberty, restricting sexual competition is a moral good. if you don't and are more interested in getting what you want out of life, then it will feel like oppression. traditional society made that call for many women before they were born and so they feel oppressed by this "patriarchy". and the rest of society does not understand on a technical level that this was a sacrifice that was made, a trade-off, that is deeply utilitarian. the former is much more difficult to defend in a safe society that already had a strongly functioning moral fabric geared towards this goal. after all: if it has been like that for so long that nobody even remembers why it was necessary to have all these restrictive rules for sexual morality, what exactly is the problem with "free love"? but as the cracks start to show within an extended period of sexual liberation, people will quickly realize that this sexual freedom is not really worth the trouble for the vast majority of people. not anyone, really.

you got the images the wrong way around idiot

Her heart told her to do Charles...

If it can also develop nicotine addiction I'll recognise it as a human.